Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in accordance with the law, and any deprivation of liberty must be examined by a court.” 2.     Constitutional Court Act 67.

The Supreme   Court thus considered that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was lawful.

    On 29 May 2017 the Kúria issued a report entitled “Summary of the assessment of the jurisprudence concerning measures restricting personal liberty”, providing an analysis of the decisions

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

It recalls that it has considered in the past house arrest to constitute “deprivation of liberty” within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Nikolova v.

Regarding the nature, scope and seriousness of the alleged offences and the applicant’s character, the courts concluded that the conditions for a   restriction of liberty still existed.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty.

    The applicant argued that the domestic courts had not acknowledged the violation of his right to personal liberty. 16.

In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty.